That’s not true.
You’re still doing it! You’re ego is invested in nit-picking and not arguments!!!
There is a difference between ‘converges to’ (which is convergence) and ‘converges towards’ which is not convergence. But!! Even that’s a contradiction because the word convergence IN AND OF ITSELF is defined as the finite conclusion of a sequence or series. Infinite or not.
Magnus!! Who gives a fuck about this trivial shit anyways?!?!
It’s part of your argument that infinite sequences are both finite and infinite sequences.
That in turn is part of your argument that infinite sequences are algorithms.
That in turn is part of your argument that the word “infinity” refers to a never-ending processes of increase.
That in turn is part of your argument that infinities do not come in sizes.
There is a difference between ‘converges to’ (which is convergence) and ‘converges towards’ which is not convergence. But!! Even that’s a contradiction because the word convergence IN AND OF ITSELF is defined as the finite conclusion of a sequence or series. Infinite or not.
Not true.
Ecmandu:Magnus!! Who gives a fuck about this trivial shit anyways?!?!
It’s part of your argument that infinite sequences are both finite and infinite sequences.
That in turn is part of your argument that infinite sequences are algorithms.
That in turn is part of your argument that the word “infinity” refers to a never-ending processes of increase.
That in turn is part of your argument that infinities do not come in sizes.
This part is transitive:
1/9 implies 0.111…
0.111… implies 1/9
If they both imply each other, they are equalities.
I have no idea what that means.
I have no idea what that means.
And that’s why this debate is over. Because you don’t understand, really, much of anything said here!
But let me be kind to you for a moment!
2+3=5
3+2=5
That means 2 and 3 are transitive: they mean the same thing!
I’ve seen you write a bunch of fancy symbols, but you don’t even understand kindergarten math!
That’s why we are butting heads here!
This isn’t supposed to be a contest of beliefs but a cooperative effort to resolve disagreements. (But then again, this is a forum, so pretty much everything anyone does here is some sort of competition where people try to prove themselves to be the smartest guy in the room.)
2+3=5
3+2=5That means 2 and 3 are transitive: they mean the same thing!
What do you mean by “transitive”?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation
In mathematics, a homogeneous relation R over a set X is transitive if for all elements a, b, c in X, whenever R relates a to b and b to c, then R also relates a to c.
Either way, it’s definitely not true that (2) and (3) mean the same thing.
This isn’t supposed to be a contest of beliefs but a cooperative effort to resolve disagreements. (But then again, this is a forum, so pretty much everything anyone does here is some sort of competition where people try to prove themselves to be the smartest guy in the room.)
Ecmandu:2+3=5
3+2=5That means 2 and 3 are transitive: they mean the same thing!
What do you mean by “transitive”?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitive_relation
Wikipedia:In mathematics, a homogeneous relation R over a set X is transitive if for all elements a, b, c in X, whenever R relates a to b and b to c, then R also relates a to c.
Either way, it’s definitely not true that (2) and (3) mean the same thing.
Magnus,
I have to admit, at this point, I enjoy teaching you because you don’t quit!
Transitive (strictly speaking) (as an example)
Is:
ab = ba
I gave you a more advanced version in the last post; what I should have said is that:
2+3 = 3+2
3+2 = 2+3
Etc…
When you introduce a new variable (such as “5”) (c) it becomes a different term than purely transitive, Wikipedia is wrong.
You never addressed the argument that proves infinite and finite behave differently in anything resembling a rational manner.
Here it is:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=190558&p=2768316#p2768299
And you are ignoring it (:
Ecmandu:Transitive (strictly speaking) (as an example)
Is:
ab = ba
That looks like commutativity.
Oh man, that’s embarrassing for me.
You have to understand that I had brain damage (was in a coma for four hours) because of a head injury.
I went from being a super-genius to just your run of the mill genius.
Yes, your neurons were not misfiring on this!
It’s communicative!
It’s communicative!
You mean commutative (:
Ecmandu:It’s communicative!
You mean commutative (:
chuckles
You know Magnus,
Brain damage did not impair my logic, just my memory.
The link you just sent me implies that I’m not allowed to make ANY argument that shows FOR A FACT that infinite and finite behave differently (supposedly (according to you) by my own reasoning).
Your argument about me contradicting myself by having every boy step forward and still all be holding hands is a fantasy of yours! It violates YOUR reasoning! Not what I’ve presented in this thread.
You know why I know I’ll win this debate?
Because I know god doesn’t exist.
You know Magnus,
Brain damage did not impair my logic, just my memory.
The link you just sent me implies that I’m not allowed to make ANY argument that shows FOR A FACT that infinite and finite behave differently (supposedly (according to you) by my own reasoning).
Your argument about me contradicting myself by having every boy step forward and still all be holding hands is a fantasy of yours! It violates YOUR reasoning! Not what I’ve presented in this thread.
You know why I know I’ll win this debate?
Because I know god doesn’t exist.
Let me put this to you a different way.
Wtf left the thread because “nobody understands cardinality”. It went over your head!
There is a highest order of cardinality that in laypersons terms means “the infinite cardinal”
This is a proof of god.
Cantor knew it to.
This is not just a simple thread/discussion about math.
Our every sentence in this thread is also about whether god exists or not!
Very high stakes for lots of people.
The link you just sent me implies that I’m not allowed to make ANY argument that shows FOR A FACT that infinite and finite behave differently (supposedly (according to you) by my own reasoning).
I am not sure I understand what you’re saying here.
Your argument about me contradicting myself by having every boy step forward and still all be holding hands is a fantasy of yours! It violates YOUR reasoning! Not what I’ve presented in this thread.
How? What’s wrong with it? Which part do you disagree with?
This is not just a simple thread/discussion about math.
That’s precisely what it is.
I made a claim earlier that infinite sequences are infinite sequences.
(You can find it here.)
You responded to it by saying:
[T]rue, but also definitely false.
Then, I asked you:
How can a statement be both true and false? Isn’t that a logical contradiction?
You ignored these questions.
So I’m going to ask you once again:
How can a belief be both true and false?
Isn’t that a logical contradiction?
Ecmandu:The link you just sent me implies that I’m not allowed to make ANY argument that shows FOR A FACT that infinite and finite behave differently (supposedly (according to you) by my own reasoning).
I am not sure I understand what you’re saying here.
Your argument about me contradicting myself by having every boy step forward and still all be holding hands is a fantasy of yours! It violates YOUR reasoning! Not what I’ve presented in this thread.
How? What’s wrong with it? Which part do you disagree with?
This is not just a simple thread/discussion about math.
That’s precisely what it is.
Magnus man, you are so incredibly naive. It makes sense to me though that if you can’t understand the implication that:
0.111… = 1/9
And
1/9 = 0.111…
They imply EACH OTHER and because they imply each other, they are equalities!
That you’d have the inability to understand that this is an argument about god!?
You’re amazing at inequalities ! (That’s an insult)
You are not good at equalities! (That’s an insult)
What does it mean to say that (0.111\dotso) implies (\frac{1}{9})?